Orbit Post Sitemap
$BTC
The continuous net inflow into the US spot ETF indicates that there is indeed incremental capital in the market, but this only increases the credibility of the breakout and does not guarantee that the price will not pull back.
The policy side is still trading on expectations of the "Clarity Act," but the bill has not yet been enacted. Subsequent PCE data, Nvidia earnings, and changes in US Treasury yields could all amplify volatility at high levels.
According to historical samples of similar "long-term consolidation followed by a single-week increase of over 20%," the probability of continued gains one month later exceeds 80%, and about 70% after three months. However, the median maximum drawdown over the next 12 weeks is also 14.5%, which, calculated from the current high, corresponds roughly to $67,700.
Therefore, even if BTC retests $68,000 to $72,000, it does not necessarily mean a return to bearishness; it is more likely a confirmation of whether this breakout is valid.
Next, focus on three key zones:
$80,000 to $81,200: short-term divergence zone
$84,000 to $85,000: core resistance in this round
$68,000 to $72,000: trend pullback and spot support zone
My judgment is that BTC has turned bullish in the medium term, but it is not suitable to chase higher in the short term. A more reasonable approach is to first oscillate at high levels or confirm with a pullback before moving upward.
If support appears between $71,000 and $73,000, there is still a chance to return above $85,000 later. Can you hold up with SNDK at $1510?
Let's look at the surface first: bloodbath, retail panic selling.
On August 24, SNDK closed at $1493.12, plunging 6.45%. The intraday low hit $1416, down nearly 40% from the June ATH of $2354. It dropped 11.6% in 7 days, breaking below the 50 EMA ($1510), but the 200 EMA remains at $1067, far below. RSI is neutral at 49.63, MACD is positive but flattening. The long-term trend is intact, but short-term is undergoing a violent shakeout.
First: The earnings report was explosive, but the market chose to ignore it.
On August 5, SNDK released Q4 FY2026 earnings: revenue $8.97 billion, up 372% YoY and 51% QoQ. Non-GAAP EPS $39.25, beating market expectations by 14.63%. Gross margin 84.6%. Data center revenue $2.98 billion, surging 103% QoQ.
The performance was outstanding, yet the stock price fell from $2350 to $1500.
Why? Because the market always trades "expectations." On the day earnings beat expectations, the pre-market dropped 9%—a classic "sell the fact" scenario.
Second: Wall Street is collectively bullish, but retail investors are cutting losses.
On August 14, JPMorgan upgraded SNDK from "Neutral" to "Overweight" with a $2250 target price. Goldman Sachs target $2200. Bernstein target $3000.
Out of 25 analysts, 22 rated "Buy" or "Strong Buy." The consensus target median is above $2100.
Sound familiar? Institutions are bullish, retail panics and sells. The same old story.
Third: A technical signal that must be taken seriously has appeared.
Yesterday it bounced after hitting $1416, indicating buyers are present in the $1400-$1450 range. The 4-hour chart closed with a hammer candlestick, a long lower shadow dipping to $1420 before pulling back.
But resistance is clear: the 50 EMA at $1510 is the first hurdle, with a stronger resistance zone at $1560-$1600. It's not easy to reclaim these levels.
Bull vs. Bear, you decide:
On the bullish side:
- Q4 revenue surged 372%, EPS $39.25 beats expectations by 14%
- 8 long-term contracts worth at least $93.9 billion
- JPMorgan $2250, Goldman Sachs $2200, Bernstein $3000 target prices
- 22 out of 25 analysts are bullish
- Volume rebound in $1400-$1450 zone, hammer candlestick signals bottom
On the bearish side:
- Dropped from $2350 to $1500, nearly 40% decline
- Perpetual contract open interest evaporated by 30% in a week
- High US Treasury yields suppress high-beta tech stocks
- Storage sector under pressure, MU down 6.2% in the same period
- Strong resistance at $1560-$1600, short-term structure weak
Resistance above: $1510 (50 EMA) → $1560-$1600 → $1700-$1800 → $2350 (ATH)
Support below: $1450-$1485 → $1400 (bulls' lifeline) → $1300 → $1100-$1200
Trading strategy:
Short-term traders:
Wait for a pullback to $1450-$1485 to lightly buy, stop loss below $1400, first target $1510-$1560, second target $1600-$1700. If volume breaks below $1400, exit decisively.
Swing traders:
Wait for daily volume to reclaim $1560-$1600 before entering on the right side, target $1800+. If it breaks below $1400, turn bearish targeting $1300.
Long-term believers:
DCA in the $1400-$1500 range. The AI storage "selling shovels" logic remains unchanged, $93.9 billion contracts lock in revenue for years. The 2027 consensus target is above $2000.
SNDK now looks like NVDA at the end of 2022—
99% thought "the AI bubble is about to burst," but it later surged 5x.
The day it reclaims $1600, you'll realize:
It's not that SNDK is weak, it's that you kept selling at the bottom.
What's your SNDK cost basis?
At $1510, do you dare to bottom-fish?
$BTC $SNDK $SKHYNIX This is like poking the hornet's nest
The market's money is limited. After $BTC and ETC rise to high levels, profit-taking naturally flows into the same chain ecosystem.
Today $SOL is clearly stronger than BTC, which is a signal—RAY and WIF are taking off along with it, while LDO and SSV in the Ethereum ecosystem also rose but with less strength.
But this is not called an altcoin season. A true altcoin rally never starts when the mainstream is pumping; it only happens when BTC and ETH begin to consolidate at high levels, and funds have nowhere else to go, then rotation to small coins occurs.
As long as $ETH does not break below 2300, it will break new highs together with BTC!
This rebound of DOGE, frankly, still depends on BTC’s mood and lacks much independence. The short-term key level is 0.094-0.095; intraday breaks don’t count, only if it can hold at close does it show some bullish confidence.
The bigger premise is that BTC must hold around 80000. Only if BTC remains stable does DOGE have a chance to turn $0.10 from "touched" to "held."
Currently, DOGE has short-term speculative value but no trend reversal. The real turning point signal is: when BTC consolidates or dips slightly, DOGE no longer follows down and its lows gradually rise; only then is it worth paying more attention.
#BTC突破80000美元，能否站稳新关口
#美启动对伊经济孤立，油价为何回落？
#ETH触及2500美元后震荡 #BTC breaks through $80,000, can it hold the new threshold?
I am Brother Ci. BTC has broken through $80,000, standing at a new threshold. Last week, ETF net inflows reached $1.92 billion, the highest single-week inflow in nearly 10 months, with institutions continuously buying above $77,000. After the price breakout, it entered a high-level consolidation phase; the proportion of short-term holders in profit has increased, adding pressure for profit-taking. This week also features macro events such as PCE inflation data, the Jackson Hole speech, and employment statistics benchmark revisions. The direction depends on how the market prices these.
$80,000 is the new dividing line between bulls and bears. If ETF funds and spot buying continue to support, the market will transition from a rebound to a bull market. If inflows slow, profit-taking at high levels and leveraged volatility will amplify the pullback. The direction hasn't changed, but the rhythm is shifting. Brother Ci has finished speaking; savor this carefully. $BTC $ETH $SNDK Former X (formerly Twitter) product lead: X is about to add a cryptocurrency trading button - Event: X platform plans to launch Smart Cashtags, allowing users to trade crypto assets directly within the feed without redirecting to external exchanges - Analysis: A key step for Musk to build a "super app," integrating social + trading, benefiting the entire crypto industry's traffic ecosystem; However, still constrained by US regulatory policies, implementation progress remains uncertain. Grayscale's Zcash spot ETF ZCSH listed on NYSE Arca - Event: The first US privacy coin (ZEC) spot ETF officially listed - Analysis: A historic breakthrough! Privacy coins (Zcash, Monero) have long been strictly regulated and restricted. The approval of this ETF signifies increased tolerance of U.S. regulators for privacy-related crypto assets, setting a precedent for future similar coin ETFs and benefiting privacy-track assets. BIT-related entities closed $419 million in BTC and ETH long positions, locking in $55.095 million in profits. - Event: BIT (formerly Matrixport) linked 11 addresses, closed large long positions, took profits and exited ✅. Short-term signal: Institutional long positions took profits, which will bring short-term selling pressure on BTC and ETH, which could trigger a market pullback ✅. Neutral: This only indicates the institution has temporarily pocketed it, not a full bearish stance; some other holdings are still retained. South Korea's Samsung and Hynix leveraged products saw nearly $1 billion in outflows this month. Funds are withdrawing from semiconductor leveraged products.Tonight, these three events in the US stock market combined give the story a different flavor.
VOO received $4.3 billion in a single week, while the S&P 500 index fell 0.92% in the same week. Even though the index dropped, money was still flowing in—typical of funds scrambling to accumulate through large ETF pools, while small-cap stocks couldn't hold up; the optical communications sector collectively rebounded that night, with Myrle Technology up 6 points, and AAOI, Lumentum—those hit by tariffs in the past few days—turned positive again. Someone started to catch the falling tech stocks; Apple updated its desktop and workstation lineup the same night, with the core selling point being to serve as a computing base for proxy programs, placing dedicated acceleration modules directly on the table.
Looking at these three events together, the core message is: big money is using the ETF channel to hedge risk, someone inside the tech sector is buying back, and this line is still embedding the base into hardware. This is not a rise; it's a structural reshuffle. One thing many traders overlook: The same market rally can create completely different pullback patterns in BTC and ETH. $BTC has a huge base of long-term holders whose coins remain relatively inactive. After a strong move, these holders are often more willing to wait than aggressively sell. That means BTC pullbacks can be driven heavily by leverage flushes, short-term profit-taking and derivatives liquidations, rather than a massive wave of long-term holders rushing for the exit. $ETH is differI give full marks to Trump's move this time, not afraid he'll get arrogant
The candlestick plunged from 3.4 to 2.3, hammered down 7% intraday, RSI6 dropped to 33.24 in the oversold zone, looks like an opportunity, right? But when you open SUPERTREND, 2.889 is firmly pressing down, and the BOLL lower band at 2.247 is still waiting below. The technicals tell me "there might be a rebound," but experience tells me "the rebound is just a fakeout."
Why? Because I can recite this script with my eyes closed—first spread rumors to pump the price, KOLs collectively get hyped, price doubles, then the team wallet starts "elegantly unloading," and finally the son casually comes out saying "it's fake." After this combo, the house counts money, the retail investors stand guard, a perfect closed loop.
The sneakiest part is, they don't even have to take responsibility after selling, after all, "I never said I was going to issue coins, you guys spread it yourselves." This move is called a "rumor disclaimer," even the law can't touch them.
Volume has already shrunk, those who needed to run have mostly run, the rest either haven't seen the news or have strong gambling instincts. Someone asked me if they can bottom-fish, I just want to say: if you have money and nowhere to spend it, why not treat me to hotpot, at least I can say thanks. $TRUMP Most cryptocurrencies are collectively under pressure, so why is only SOL turning green against the trend? ⚠️
The overall market is mostly red, BTC has slightly pulled back, ETH is weakening, sentiment coins and altcoins are collectively falling, SUI dropped sharply by 3.89%, DOGE fell nearly 3%, but only SOL has risen against the trend.
Strength against the trend does not mean the entire market is recovering; it actually reflects a lack of market liquidity. With insufficient new funds, the existing capital can only cluster around a few coins, using the method of boosting individual popular coins to play the market, while most other tokens receive no capital support and are left to decline in price.
At the same time, gold is also weakening, and the overall preference for risk assets is declining. Once the clustered SOL funds cash out and exit, a catch-down drop is likely to occur. Don’t get overly excited and chase highs just because a single coin is rising; in a weakening market environment, the risk-reward ratio for counter-trend coins is not favorable.
Now is not the time to be attracted by the profit effect of individual coins and chase the rally. Most coins are still in a correction channel, and blindly chasing highs is very likely to catch the falling knife. In a volatile market, prioritize avoiding high-level counter-trend coins.
$BTC
$ETH
$DOGE Yesterday, BTC ETF net inflow was 4,343 units, and ETH ETF net inflow was 46,900 units.
Funds have been continuously entering this week, which is a pretty good start. Not only BTC and ETH, but leading altcoins like XRP and SOL ETFs have also seen large capital inflows, creating a multi-asset capital resonance.
However, there is still a contrast in the market: the capital data looks great, but many altcoin sectors have clearly fallen behind the pace.
Simply put, many weak altcoins have completed chip distribution, leaving only retail investors holding the bags. Even if the overall market surges later, they will struggle to follow the rise.
The essence is still insufficient liquidity, unable to bloom comprehensively, only partial rotation is possible.
So the strategy is very clear: focus on the strongest assets in the first wave of the rally. Don’t hesitate just because it’s not at the bottom; truly good coins won’t stay low waiting for you.
Those still at the bottom are often unwanted—don’t touch them.
Look back and see, isn’t it always the strong that stay strong?
$BTC $ETH #Strategy增发扩充现金，BTC配置节奏受关注 US spot BTC ETFs saw a net inflow of $1.92 billion last week, the largest weekly inflow in 10 months. Over $4 billion in short positions were liquidated in the past two days. BTC rose about 23% last week, marking the largest weekly gain in over three years. Iran sanctions have boosted safe-haven demand. Bridgewater Dalio also called for moderate Bitcoin allocation. The whole market is FOMO$BTC $ETH But the three things this week are the real test. First: August 26, 8:30 PM. July PCE inflation data. Market expects core PCE to rise 0.2% month-on-month. If it falls short of expectations, inflation will cool down. If rate cut expectations heat up, BTC will keep flying. If it exceeds expectations, the stickiness of inflation will be confirmed. September will hold steady or even raise rates, putting BTC under short-term pressure. Second item: August 28th at 10 PM: Wash's Jackson Hole debut. This is the first global appearance since the new Fed chairman took office. Wash is a hawk. After taking office, he deliberately avoided forward-looking guidance, shortened policy statements, and was vague. The market interpreted his silence as a lack of determination to fight inflation. Wash said balance was dovish, BTC rose, caution meant hawkish, BTC declined He might not provide any substantive guidance, which would be like throwing the market into a vacuum, with greater volatility. Third, August 28, employment statistics benchmark revision. July nonfarm payrolls were already bad enough, down 23,000 jobs, expecting an increase of 80,000. The data for May and June was revised down by 103,000 people. How much more will it be revised down this time? If the revision is sharp, the labor market will be colder than expected. Recession forecast$HYPE Today's Trend Analysis: Breaking Through $83 to Hit an All-Time High, Is the Pullback to $78 a Healthy Correction or a Trend Reversal?
On August 25, Hyperliquid (HYPE) reached a historic moment—the token broke through the $83 mark, reaching a high of approximately $83.27-$83.50, setting a new all-time high. After a strong rally, HYPE has pulled back to around $78. At the time of writing, HYPE is oscillating between $78-$80, down about 4% in the last 24 hours, but still up approximately 31% over the past seven days.
The core driver of this rally comes from multiple converging factors. On the macro regulatory front, the market reacted immediately after the White House commented on CFTC Chairman Michael Selig exploring compliance pathways for Hyperliquid to operate directly in the U.S. market. Additionally, news about the SEC potentially filing documents to expand on-chain IPO pre-stock trading added momentum to the ecosystem fundamentals. On the ecosystem side, Hyperliquid’s project Kinetiq announced the launch of the Hyperliquid L2 network Elysium, which will use HYPE as the native Gas token, directly increasing HYPE’s use cases. Meanwhile, AQAv2 will officially launch on August 26, allocating 90% of reserve earnings to burn HYPE tokens. Since November 2024, Hyperliquid has burned approximately $1.27 billion worth of 462 million HYPE tokens. VanEck data shows that in Q1 2026, spot and perpetual contract total trading volume exceeded $633 billion, with over 97% of protocol fees used for HYPE buybacks.
However, multiple technical signals are flashing. HYPE rose from a low near $55 in August to $83.50, a bottom-to-peak increase of over 50%, forming a textbook parabolic rise. The daily RSI surged above 75 after the vertical rally, with price stalling near the $83-$84 liquidity-dense zone, where early long leverage positions took profits causing short-term rejection of further upside. Bollinger Bands show price near $81.06, with upper resistance at $82.55 and lower support at $76.01. RSI has retreated to a neutral 62.61, but MACD shows a death cross, indicating a possible pullback to the 50-EMA ($72.41) before continuing upward.
Signals from the derivatives market are particularly cautionary. HYPE futures 24-hour spot volume is about $334 million, while futures volume reaches approximately $4.88 billion—leveraged derivatives are dominating short-term price discovery. Open interest in futures is about $3.36 billion; when open interest is so large relative to spot trading activity, even small price moves can trigger chain reactions. In the past 24 hours, HYPE contracts liquidated about $5.55 million, with longs accounting for 69%.
Whale activity is also noteworthy. Today, two whales sequentially positioned short on HYPE, planning to sell about 449,500 HYPE tokens at a weighted average price of $93.94, with a notional value of approximately $42.2 million. One “stock market winner” address fully took profits on 152,800 HYPE longs yesterday and today shifted to short positions between $90.385 and $104.68. Another address established a short position at $75.92 and currently faces an unrealized loss of about $1.598 million. Meanwhile, some whales continue accumulating—one address withdrew a total of 80,600 HYPE from Coinbase Prime, valued at $5.53 million.
Key levels: The strongest resistance above is in the $83-$84 range; a daily close above $84 would open clear space toward $90+. The first support below is at $78-$79—buyers may try to defend this first major breakout area; if broken, the next support is at $76.50-$77.00; the main structural support lies at $71-$73.
There is also an important supply factor ahead: CoinGecko shows about 9.92 million HYPE tokens will unlock on September 6, accounting for about 1% of total supply. While this does not necessarily mean they will be sold, it is a supply event near the historical high that cannot be ignored.
Risk Warning: The battle between bulls and bears in the $83-$84 liquidity-dense zone will determine the short-term direction. Investors are advised to closely monitor the $78-$79 support area and volume changes, strictly control position risk, and avoid chasing rallies with high leverage. Recently, a very exaggerated claim has been circulating in the community: "All-in Brother" predicts $CORE will surge to $0.8 tonight. Based on the current price of about $0.025, this means it needs to rise more than 30 times in a short period. This goal is not an ordinary technical breakthrough, but an expectation at an extreme market level. 🔥 🧠 Don't rush to chase it; look at the logic behind it. Currently, this news feels more like a community rumor than a major fundamental positive announcement from CORE. What truly deserves attention is not the price someone shouted about, but whether there are real funds and fundamentals following up. Currently, $CORE's short-term key areas remain to watch: $0.026 → $0.030. If a high volume breakout and sustained holding hold would it indicate that buying is truly strengthening. Conversely, if only news stimulates a sudden rally without sustained trading volume and capital support, then it is likely that a surge → FOMO chases the rally → rapid pullback → trapped 🔥 at high levels. But CORE's long-term story remains worth watching. As BTC breaks through $80K, market attention to the BTCFi narrative is heating up again. Potential catalysts for CORE include: • Growth of BTCFi ecosystem funds • Development of BTC staking/liquidity products • Continuously rising TVL • New institutional collaborations and ecosystem integration • Expansion of on-chain activity and trading volumeWatched the market all night, $SNDK's movement today is quite interesting; the token is even stronger than the underlying stock, with the premium basically neutralized.
📰 News: Before the market opened, CNBC included it in the volatility list, Yahoo reported a morning plunge, Q4 earnings exceeded expectations but forward guidance was weak, plus layoffs in Israel and ESPP controversies, the entire storage sector is feeling quite pressured today.
🔧 Technicals: Daily RSI14 at 63.4 is on the strong side, MACD death cross with expanding green bars, price fell below MA7 but rebounded above MA25, the 7/25 moving averages are still in a bullish alignment, indicating short-term digestion but the mid-term trend remains intact.
🌍 Macro: Nasdaq 100 tokens rose 0.93%, overall risk appetite in US stocks during intraday was decent, high-beta sectors like storage can catch some momentum, so it’s not too bad.
🎯 Today's view: Bullish. Token premium has basically returned to zero, no hype; the underlying stock’s earnings fundamentals are solid, just forward guidance is weak, mid-term moving averages still support technically, once sentiment warms up the rebound is worth watching. I will keep an eye on the recovery pace after subsequent earnings reports.
📊 Token 1,510.93 (+4.87%) | Underlying stock 1,511.30 (+1.22%) | Premium -0.02% | US market intraday
#USStockTokens
#StorageSector
#Nasdaq100 #美启动对伊经济孤立，油价为何回落？
🔥The US just announced a "total economic offensive" against Iran, yet oil prices fell. It seems counterintuitive, right? Actually, the logic is very clear.
Bassett announced an "unprecedented" economic action at midnight, targeting five lifelines: digital assets, technology, gold, aviation, and shipping, plus adding 60 entities to the blacklist. As a result, Brent crude dropped 2.35%, continuing to fall to around $89 on Tuesday.
The reason is simple: the boot has dropped. The market had already priced in the expectation of "the US going after Iran" last week, with Brent rising over 5% that week. When the news came out on Monday, those who wanted to buy had already done so early; what's left is just profit-taking.
More importantly, the sanction method changed—this time it's secondary sanctions, not expanded military strikes. Military risk is decreasing, and the geopolitical war premium previously factored into oil prices is starting to retreat. Also, the most aggressive option didn't happen: no immediate sanctions on Iranian oil buyers, allowing a buffer period. China accounts for over 80% of Iran's oil exports; as long as China keeps buying, the sanctions' impact will be discounted.
OPEC+ is still quietly increasing production, shouting sanctions while boosting supply—how can oil prices not pull back?
The short-term logic is clear: expectations maxed out → news hits → profit-taking → oil price correction. But actual traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains extremely low; this game is far from over. 👇$BTC Is this wave really a bull comeback?
$BTC In the past few days, it has surged from just over 60,000 to around 80,000, with today's high already touching above 81,000. From the trend perspective, most of the declines since June have basically been recovered, and the platform between 62,000–66,000 that lingered for over a month was also directly broken through with volume.
This wave is not just about the candlesticks looking good. After the expansion of US long-term treasury repurchases, US bond yields fell and the dollar weakened, $BTC began to accelerate noticeably; last week, the combined net inflow of US BTC and ETH spot ETFs was about 2.6 billion USD, plus nearly 4 billion USD of shorts squeezed out earlier, these forces together pushed the market up.
So now saying "bull comeback" is much more confident than a few days ago, but the 80,000–82,000 range is exactly the previous high zone, and after today's surge there, it quickly fell back to around 78,000. In the short term, it should first oscillate or even pull back here; continuing to surge straight up won't be that easy.
As long as it doesn't fall back to around 72,000, the platform of this breakthrough, the overall structure is still bullish. If it can really absorb and hold above the 82,000 area, the nature of this rally will be more like re-entering an uptrend, rather than just a large-scale rebound.The privacy coin once shunned by regulators has quietly landed on the US stock market
Tonight, the opening bell at NYSE Arca rang for a coin that many thought would never enter the mainstream market. Grayscale's Zcash spot ETF, trading under the ticker ZCSH, was officially listed, becoming the world's first exchange-traded product offering spot exposure to Zcash.
Veteran players are familiar with the name Zcash. It launched in 2016, relying on optional privacy features; during transactions, you can choose to hide addresses and amounts using zero-knowledge proof technology. The network has been running for nearly a decade, with a fixed cap of 21 million coins, and it also uses the traditional PoW mechanism. The ZCSH listed by Grayscale today originated from the Grayscale Zcash Trust, which was privately established in October 2017, and after nine years of twists and turns, it finally reached this listing stage.
The opening moment was somewhat dramatic. ZCSH opened on the US stock market up 1.83%, then the gains shrank to 0.41%, currently trading at $65.85. The head of Grayscale's index business positioned ZCSH as a high-risk satellite allocation within a digital asset portfolio, implicitly warning that this asset is highly volatile and should not be considered a core holding.
What’s interesting is the contrast. Privacy coins have long been a headache for regulators. Because of their optional anonymity features, many mainstream exchanges have simply delisted ZEC, and institutional compliance departments have avoided it altogether. Now, Grayscale has packaged it as a compliant product and directly brought it to the NYSE, allowing US investors to gain exposure to ZEC without managing private keys or wallets, simply through a regular brokerage account. Those who constantly advocate decentralization may now be holding a privacy-focused coin through the most centralized traditional financial channels.
Why did Grayscale take this step? Over the past year, spot ETFs have become the standard gateway for crypto assets entering traditional markets. After Bitcoin and Ethereum, capital began seeking stories in more niche sectors. Privacy coins have been too compliance-sensitive for anyone to touch, and Grayscale is the first to bite this bullet. But it is also cautious, only selling ZCSH as a satellite allocation and not packaging it as a core holding.
For ordinary investors, the biggest convenience is not having to manage private keys themselves or worry about any platform suddenly delisting ZEC and making it inaccessible. The trade-off is clear: you hold regulated fund shares, not the truly anonymous coin on-chain. Those seeking privacy cannot get privacy; those seeking compliance get exposure. This fact alone is thought-provoking.
Within the community, there have always been two camps. One sees this as a milestone—privacy coins finally recognized by the mainstream financial system; the other frowns, worried that once inside a regulated ETF framework, ZEC’s most cherished privacy significance will be diluted, and what you buy is only price exposure, not the anonymity spirit.
When ZEC becomes just a line of code in a brokerage account, is the privacy it originally sought to protect still there? This is probably the most worth pondering question after tonight’s bell.New coins artificially support 30% of trading volume, revealing the true situation of the Korean exchange
South Korea's largest crypto exchange Upbit has been acting strangely lately. On the surface, it seems to be aggressively listing new coins, having launched 61 KRW trading pairs just by August this year, a pace faster than in previous years. But looking at the trading data, you find a completely opposite story.
Upbit's monthly market trading volume has shrunk from 72.7 trillion KRW in January to 27.1 trillion KRW in August, halving twice over, a total shrinkage of 63%. Even more telling is that this decline is not just on a few days but has been a continuous downward trend over several months, indicating that capital withdrawal is not a pulse but a trend.
The interesting part is here. While the overall market cools down, Upbit has actually accelerated its coin listings. The trading volume share of newly listed coins climbed from a meager 5% in January to 27.6% in August, nearly 30%. Most of the main trading pairs are established mainstream coins, which have thin trading activity and are the real source of the exchange's anxiety. So, they keep adding new coins to prop up the scene.
This tactic is not new in a bear market. New coins often have a premium in their first few days of listing, and Korean retail investors have always been enthusiastic about speculating on new coins. Exchanges can recover a lot of trading volume this way. Globally, there are multiple exchanges that rely on new coin listings to boost data during bear markets, but the scale in Korea is particularly striking. However, the problem lies exactly here. Can the premium on new coins be sustained indefinitely? As the overall market liquidity shrinks, how many rounds can the game of relying on new coin listings to survive continue?
Let's look at it from another angle. An exchange willing to aggressively list coins when trading volume is at its worst shows it is more anxious than anyone else; it feels the chill earlier than its users. In Korea, coin listings have always been a business involving listing fees, market-making arrangements, and premium sharing—every link in the chain is calculated. Those rushing in for the listing premium may not realize they are taking on the very inventory the exchange is pushing to boost volume.
Korean retail investors have always been the most enthusiastic group in the crypto market. In the last bull run, the KRW premium once became a global sentiment indicator. Now, this indicator points to a vicious cycle of increasing coin listings but decreasing liquidity. Interestingly, just last month, Upbit's parent company Dunamu was in talks with U.S. regulators, planning to list on Nasdaq. While the inside is cooling down, the outward expansion has not stopped for a moment.
What to watch next is how much further this 27.6% share of new coins can rise. If the overall market continues to shrink and the premium on new coins starts to collapse, the trick of propping up the scene with new listings will be exposed. Then, who will really be left inside the market?The three giants of Wall Street have quietly joined this chain
LayerZero dropped a subtle bomb these days. They announced they plan to launch a blockchain trading platform called ATLAS this fall, exclusively for institutions, completely excluding retail investors.
The news itself isn't explosive, but what really makes your scalp tingle is the list of partners. Citadel Securities, DTCC, and ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, are all involved. These names together basically represent half of the modern financial market: market making, clearing, exchanges — a full suite.
We've been used to hearing narratives about decentralization and disintermediation, talking about bypassing Wall Street. But now, the most famous cross-chain protocol in the space is turning around and bringing in Wall Street's core players as partners. Setting irony aside, the signal is clear: big money wants on-chain access, but what they want is never a utopia of equal opportunity for all; they want a dedicated channel that can manage, clear, and comply.
ATLAS is based on LayerZero's Zero blockchain announced this February. The first batch will only handle spot and perpetual contracts, with prediction contracts, futures, and options coming later. LayerZero boldly claims that on day one, top global market makers will provide liquidity — and yes, people like Citadel.
Why now? Traditional finance's T+2 settlement is slow and expensive, while on-chain is naturally 24/7 and can settle in real time. Institutions are eyeing this efficiency.
Interestingly, this platform explicitly states it will not build consumer-facing applications. In other words, ordinary players like you and me are not its target. It aims to serve funds, institutions, and market makers, helping them complete trades on-chain that previously could only be done on traditional exchanges.
What does this mean for us? In the short term, ZRO has already moved first, surging over 11% shortly after the news, pushing its market cap to $746 million. But token price fluctuations are superficial; what’s truly worth watching is that when infrastructure players like DTCC and ICE seriously go on-chain, the boundary between crypto and traditional finance blurs further.
Many are still debating whether the bull market has arrived, but what we should really consider is that if this rally is real, the leading force is no longer the geeks shouting for DeFi back then. Institutions are coming in with compliance, licenses, and their own rules. What the on-chain world will look like now, no one can say for sure.
You can call this a sign of crypto being embraced by the mainstream, or another form of being co-opted.BlackRock has lowered the threshold for exchanging ETFs to one million
Three months ago, if you held Bitcoin and wanted to directly exchange it for shares of BlackRock's spot ETF fund, the minimum threshold was $25 million. It was like an invisible wall, keeping the vast majority of coin holders out. But in July this year, BlackRock quietly changed this number, cutting it directly to one million dollars.
This cut is 25 times lower. With a lower threshold, more people can reach it. Data disclosed by Bloomberg clearly illustrates this: the fund has accumulated over $5 billion worth of Bitcoin through physical subscriptions. In October last year, this number had just passed $3 billion, so in less than a year it increased by more than $2 billion, which is quite fast.
Physical subscription basically means you can directly exchange real Bitcoin for fund shares through authorized participants or market makers, without having to first sell it for dollars and then buy back. BlackRock's digital asset head said they want to make it easier for coin holders to move their assets into the fund. Not only BlackRock, another asset management company also lowered a similar threshold from $100 million to $3 million.
Many people don't realize that this is the same underlying current behind Bitcoin's recent surge to $80,000. The price fluctuations are watched by retail investors, but the underlying pipeline is quietly expanding. Lowering the threshold to move coins into funds means that coins that were previously idle in wallets now have a smoother exit. For BlackRock, this means steady growth in management fees and assets under management; for ordinary coin holders, it raises the question of whether this is simply an additional choice or if they are gradually handing over their chips to others.
There is an interesting contrast here. Some in the community treat self-custody as a belief, thinking that coins only count if held in their own wallets. But the reality is that more and more coin holders are actively placing their coins into the fund's custody system. Convenience is one aspect, and since regulators relaxed rules on physical subscriptions last summer, the pipeline moving crypto assets into ETFs is getting wider and wider.
We need to think clearly about one thing. When big institutions keep lowering the threshold, coins held by retail investors and institutions alike may quietly end up in the same fund. Is this crypto moving toward mainstream adoption, or is the control over coins slowly being handed over? Beyond the price surge to $80,000, these quiet changes might be more worth watching than individual candlesticks.What’s behind Goldman Sachs raising Coinbase’s target price to $196
On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs raised Coinbase’s target price directly from $173 to $196, maintaining a buy rating. Coincidentally, Wall Street collectively stamped a bullish outlook on the same day: Raymond James upgraded AMD to strong buy, Canaccord raised Strategy’s target price from $130 to $175, and Bank of America kept Nvidia, Marvell, and Micron on their buy lists. Companies along the crypto and AI chains were all highlighted in research reports on Tuesday.
But zooming in on Coinbase itself, the story gets a bit complicated. The exchange’s core trading revenue has actually been declining recently. Data we saw earlier showed that several listed crypto exchanges’ Q2 trading revenues all declined quarter-over-quarter. The gap between Coinbase’s trading and non-trading revenue dropped from $132 million to $44 million within a year. Analysts are now willing to assign a higher target price, betting not on current fees but on new businesses like derivatives and prediction markets that haven’t yet matured or monetized.
One detail worth highlighting: in this rebound, Binance and Coinbase together absorbed more than half of the stablecoin inflows. On a single day, Binance took in about $2.026 billion and Coinbase about $1.447 billion, meaning the majority of potential buying power is stuck at these two gateways. Analysts raising target prices are valuing precisely this traffic position. Coinbase itself hasn’t been idle in seeking new revenue streams; recently, it changed USDC rewards to BTC, effectively swapping stablecoin yields for risk exposure, clearly trying to find new paths for its revenue structure.
However, Goldman Sachs added a caveat to its buy rating: the crypto market environment must continue to improve, and those new businesses must truly grow. In other words, this is still an expectation. Meanwhile, signals on the other side aren’t so relaxed. In the same week of bullish calls, UBS’s market fragility indicator just hit an extreme level, and historically, this position is often followed by intense volatility. The Federal Reserve’s September rate decision and the November midterm elections are two ticking time bombs.
The target price increase looks lively, but don’t overlook a fundamental fact: exchanges ultimately earn money from trading sentiment, and when the market cools, revenue shrinks accordingly. Ordinary investors may get excited seeing target prices raised, but that’s ultimately an analyst’s judgment, not a company guarantee. When the screen is full of improvement stories, looking back at the revenue curve and that flashing risk light might be more practical than fixating on the $196 figure.Previously accused of limiting crypto exposure but now adding a trading button
Nikita Bier, the former product head of platform X, dropped a statement these days that stunned many in the crypto community. He revealed that X will soon add a cryptocurrency trading button to posts, so when you come across a new token, you won’t need to jump to any exchange; you can complete buying and selling directly within that post.
This development is surprising enough on its own. What’s more awkward is the background. Before this, people in the community kept criticizing Bier for limiting Crypto Twitter’s exposure during his tenure, saying good projects couldn’t get promoted. But this time he straightforwardly responded that he personally created the Cashtags feature back then, allowing you to see real-time price charts of Solana and Ethereum directly in posts. Now, with the trading button added, users can go from viewing prices to placing orders without leaving X at all.
Actually, before the button goes live, X already allows users to directly paste contract addresses of newly issued tokens. That means if you want to buy a newly emerged meme coin, you currently have to copy the address yourself, switch to your wallet, and operate manually. Once the trading button is integrated, this manual process will be eliminated. If you see a hyped-up post, you can jump in with one click, losing that brief moment that might have given you a chance to cool down.
He also shared his view on the current market trend. In his opinion, the recent crypto market rally isn’t driven by any technological breakthrough but by the U.S. Treasury increasing the scale of long-term Treasury buybacks. The market started betting on a dollar devaluation, and money flowed in. This explanation is completely different from the usual narratives in the community about halving events or institutional entry; he directly attributes the cause to the Treasury’s actions.
What’s most intriguing is the logic behind it. A platform centered on posting and social interaction is quietly transforming itself into an exchange. Previously, when you hyped or criticized a coin on X, you only influenced sentiment. In the future, you’ll be able to place orders directly within the same post, making the platform both a forum for public opinion and a trading venue. Sentiment and action are compressed into the same interface, minimizing the cost of impulsive decisions.
Bier hasn’t clarified when the button will launch, which assets it will support, or who they will partner with. But the direction is clear. As the boundaries between social apps, wallets, and exchanges blur, the screen we scroll every day might be more dangerous than we think.The financial backer protecting the decentralized world has pulled out
This evening, a breaking news exploded. Shipyard, the core team maintaining IPFS, announced that because Protocol Labs will no longer renew funding support, all their engineering, maintenance, and infrastructure operations will end on September 30.
Many people might not realize how close IPFS is to us. Those so-called decentralized applications you use now, NFT metadata, and various on-chain file storage largely run on this protocol. Core implementations like Kubo, Helia, Boxo, and public gateways like ipfs.io, dweb.link are all maintained by the Shipyard team.
The most ironic part is this: something regarded by the entire industry as the cornerstone of decentralization is actually maintained by a team paid by a single foundation. When Protocol Labs stops funding, the team disbands, and those public nodes shut down. The decentralization we shout about every day, at the very bottom, is still centralized in maintenance.
Shipyard was only established in 2024, and its members are basically veterans who previously worked on IPFS at Protocol Labs. In other words, the financial backers and the workers originally came from the same group. Now the parent company has turned off the faucet, and the subsidiary team is gone first.
To be clear, IPFS technology is indeed decentralized, with open-source code and anyone able to run nodes. But what truly keeps this network alive are the salaried engineers and the costly public gateways. Open source does not mean someone is maintaining it, which is a deadlock many Web3 projects cannot avoid.
The protocol itself certainly won’t die immediately. Protocol Labs said they will shift to lighter governance, distributing funds to individual maintainers through the IPFS Foundation to continue decentralized infrastructure. But honestly, the gap between a dedicated team and loosely supported individuals is huge.
Ordinary users might not feel it immediately. When you open those web pages, images, and files relying on IPFS, they will still load normally in the short term because the nodes haven’t shut down yet. But once maintenance stops, bugs won’t be fixed, vulnerabilities won’t be patched, and gateway responses will slow down—these issues will gradually surface. By the time everyone notices, it’s often too late to fix.
What worries me more is the next month. Until September 30, these public infrastructures are still supported by Shipyard. After that, who will take over, and whether they can handle it, is a big question mark. Teams heavily dependent on IPFS for their projects probably need to reassess their storage solutions in the coming days.
We always say Web3 needs decentralization, but even the most fundamental storage maintenance is still tied to the budget of a single lab. If the financial backer changes their mind someday, the supposedly unbreakable infrastructure might not even have anyone to hand it over to. At that time, no one can guarantee whether the things you stored there will still be there.Betting on no rate hike but simultaneously shorting the Nasdaq
A trader who had been betting for four consecutive days in the prediction market that the Federal Reserve would not raise rates in September quietly opened a short position on the Nasdaq worth $1.5 million early this morning. This sounds like a self-contradiction, but when you break down the two accounts, you’ll find he’s actually playing a very sophisticated hedging strategy.
This person, codenamed TwoEyes, from the morning of August 22 to early August 23, placed about 149 buy orders totaling roughly $110,000, all betting on the same outcome: that rates would remain unchanged in September. The weighted probability at the time of his purchases was about 68, meaning the market generally believed no rate hike was highly likely. Early this morning, he added another $10,000 at an average probability of 67, bringing the total to about $120,000 on the same side.
Logically, betting on no rate hike is equivalent to being bullish on risk assets, so for a rate-sensitive asset like the Nasdaq, one would expect a long position. Yet, six hours after finishing his latest round of additions, he went to Hyperliquid and opened a 30x fully leveraged short position on the Nasdaq, with a position value of about $1.51 million, currently showing an unrealized loss of over $10,000.
Is this contradictory? He obviously doesn’t think so. The secret lies in those $120,000 prediction market positions. If rates really remain unchanged in September, his two core prediction positions combined could pay out about $220,000, with a maximum profit close to $70,000. Meanwhile, for the $1.5 million Nasdaq short, he loses over $50 for every point the index rises. The profit from the prediction market can cover roughly 1,100 points, about a 4% margin of error. In other words, he used a small bet in the prediction market to buy limited upside insurance for his ten-times-leveraged Nasdaq short.
The logic behind this is probably that he doesn’t fully believe that no rate hike will necessarily push the Nasdaq up continuously, or he’s betting on another scenario, such as no rate hike but the market has already priced in the good news, or he has concerns about the current valuation of the Nasdaq itself. Whatever the motivation, combining prediction markets with perpetual contracts is becoming increasingly common on-chain recently. Essentially, it’s using the payout from one market to hedge extreme volatility in another.
Interestingly, his two combined positions are currently showing an unrealized loss of over $4,000, with the Nasdaq short’s return about -21, and the liquidation price above 38,000 points. That means the insurance hasn’t kicked in yet, but the bill has arrived first. Once the September rate decision is announced, whether the prediction position profits first or the Nasdaq short gets squeezed will reveal the outcome of this internal hedging strategy. Do you think he’s found a loophole, or is he just making a risky bet on a knife’s edge? 脱水全天行情，剥离市场噪音，只看真正影响资金流向的核心信息。👇 🌍 一句话总结 $BTC BTC 今日一度突破 80,000，最高触及 81,272，随后获利盘兑现回落至 78,344，24 小时涨约 1.2%。山寨季全面扩散，92% 代币上涨，$STX 涨超 21% 成今日最亮眼异动。A 股指数分化个股普涨，港股恒指微跌 6 点险守 25,500。美股周二开盘集体走高，半导体板块反弹，终结连日跌势。市场等待明日 PCE 数据、周四英伟达财报与杰克逊霍尔年会。 🪙 Crypto｜BTC 冲高回落，山寨季扩散 BTC 今日在币安最高触及 81,272，创 5 月以来新高，随后回落至 78,344，全天爆仓 6.35 亿美元，9.4 万人被清算。山寨总市值重返 1 万亿美元，92% 代币录得上涨。 STX 涨超 21%、SOL 重返 100 美元，是今日最具辨识度的两个信号。STX 逻辑为比特币 L2 龙头，受益于 BTC 突破后的生态资金外溢；SOL 站稳 100 美元后，市场开始博弈 110-120 美元空间。 💡 大叔观察：BTC 冲高回落是典型高位获利盘兑现，不代表趋势反转Bitcoin surged to 80,000 with leverage but then hit the floor—there's a hidden story behind this short squeeze rally
Bitcoin has climbed from 62,000 all the way to around 80,000 in this round, with a weekly gain ranking as the second largest in nearly five years. The screen is full of bright red explosive gains. But something strange happened: logically, with such a sharp rise, a large wave of people should have leveraged up to jump in, but the reality is the opposite.
Glassnode's data shows that the open interest of Bitcoin-denominated futures contracts has actually decreased instead of increasing. It’s currently about 587,000 contracts, down from 645,000 on August 14, dropping to the lowest level in nearly five months. The last time open interest was this low was during the deep correction this spring. This means this rally was not built on new longs piling on leverage.
What really pushed the price up was a wave after wave of short liquidations. Tens of billions of dollars in short positions were wiped out in a classic short squeeze, with the short squeeze stampede pushing Bitcoin past 80,000. Interestingly, the annualized funding rate for perpetual contracts is still below 10%, indicating that bullish leveraged funds are not crowded at all. Everyone talks bullish, but very few are actually leveraging with real money.
Even more striking is that the open interest in crypto margin futures has dropped to about 52,000 contracts, a historic low, accounting for only 11% of total market activity. The proportion of cash margin is rising, which is actually a good thing. Previously, the biggest fear was that when prices fell, collateral would shrink, triggering forced liquidations and causing deeper crashes. Now with a higher cash ratio, this chain reaction of cascading liquidations is cut off. Anyone trading crypto knows that this kind of clean and straightforward rally is actually more reassuring than one full of leverage.
I’ve been staring at this number for a while. In every past Bitcoin breakout, there was a dense crowd of leveraged longs behind it, and the fiercer the rise, the harder the fall afterward. This time it’s completely reversed: prices hit new highs while leverage is flat on the floor. Have retail investors finally learned their lesson, or are institutions slowly pushing with cash?
Whatever the answer, the low participation in derivatives and healthier structure at least indicate this rally is not so hollow. But on the flip side, how far can a rally go without leverage support is itself a question mark. What do you think about the 80,000 level—is this the start of a true bull market, or just the calm before the storm?The factory that created countless meme coins is now getting listed on Binance itself
Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange, just released news that has the meme community buzzing. On August 26th at 4 PM, Binance Spot will open trading pairs for PUMP, and simultaneously enable algorithmic trading bots. The PUMP token is from pump.fun, the meme launchpad that has been both loved and hated by many over the past two years. This launch is not just for PUMP; it also includes USDC pairs against the Argentine Peso and ACE, but PUMP is clearly aimed at the meme crowd.
You might never have launched a coin yourself, but you’ve probably seen the scenes on pump.fun. A Twitter avatar, a name, a story of uncertain truth, and within minutes a new token is created and thrown onto the blockchain. If it pumps, someone buys in; if it crashes, it goes to zero and that's that. pump.fun has made a fortune with this model—platform fees, coin issuance charges, liquidity—all real money flowing into its pockets. It turned coin issuance from a task requiring a technical team into something anyone can do with a few clicks.
Now here’s the interesting part. The factory that makes money by letting others launch coins is now getting a seat at Binance’s table. For Binance, PUMP has real traffic and attention, so listing it can bring activity and volume—there’s no logical flaw there. But for those who lost money on pump.fun, the feeling is complicated. The coins they once called "meme dogs" are now officially listed by the very factory that made them. At its peak, pump.fun could launch tens of thousands of coins a day, earning billions in fees; it’s the most stable winner in this meme frenzy.
What’s even more worth pondering is the timing. In this recent market rally, the meme sector has clearly warmed up, and funds are flowing back into these highly volatile assets. Once a token like PUMP is listed on Binance, liquidity, exposure, and bot-driven volume all connect, likely making short-term hype and volatility even more intense. But we must be clear: an exchange listing does not equal project endorsement, nor does it mean the token is worth its price. Tokens from a coin-launching machine are essentially just chips within that coin-launching ecosystem.
The real question is, now that the meme coin creators themselves have learned to get listed on major exchanges, will there still be buyers for the new coins ordinary players hold? The table hasn’t changed, only the dealer has taken a more prominent seat. Whether you chase this hype or not, you should first consider if you’re betting on sentiment or on value. The so-called decentralized DeFi vaults have 70% controlled by just five entities
A freshly released report has burst many people's illusions about DeFi. Vaults.fyi analyzed 856 vaults, 131 custodians, and 18 protocols, with a total locked value of approximately $11.29 billion. The conclusion is harsh: the top five custodians control 69% of the funds, and the top ten hold 79.1%.
What happened to decentralization? We talk about DeFi every day as returning financial power to users, yet the money bags are still concentrated in the hands of a few names. Even more striking is the concentration at the address level: weighted by locked value, a single address holds on average 47% of the share, and the top ten addresses collectively control 74%. No matter how many protocols there are, in reality, a few addresses can influence a huge amount of money.
Behind this is a counterintuitive trend. Over the past year, the total DeFi supply-side TVL dropped by 41.8%, but custodial vaults actually increased by 39%, with market share rising from 5.24% to 12.51%. User mentality partly explains this: with continuous collapses, people are reluctant to spread money across small protocols and prefer to squeeze into top custodial vaults for peace of mind. But this doesn't eliminate risk; it just concentrates it from many small risks into a few big ones. Whoever hits these is hit hard. On the surface, it looks like a rational choice, but in the long run, it tightens the fragile points even more.
The top players' landscape is far from stable. Sentora and Concrete were not even on the list a year ago, now ranking second and fourth respectively; Usual dropped directly from fourth to thirty-fourth. Even custodians themselves are undergoing a major reshuffle, and the drastic ranking changes indicate the field is not settled. Today's winners may not be tomorrow's moat.
The most intriguing part is the entry posture of traditional institutions. The report names Société Générale, Apollo, and JPMorgan Chase—giants once shouted down by DeFi as disruptors—who have quietly deployed custodial vault strategies. They weren't disrupted; they came back under a new identity. Those who once shouted "code is law" probably never imagined sitting at the same custodial table with bankers one day.
Another detail: about 33% of custodial funds require multi-step redemption processes, with a median 7-day annualized yield of 4.82%, which is 98 basis points higher than instant redemption. That extra yield comes at the cost of liquidity constraints. The higher the concentration, the closer a single custodian's failure is to systemic risk. When a run happens, they will be the slowest to escape. The so-called high yield becomes the last promise to be fulfilled.
How decentralized is DeFi really? This report gives a less flattering answer. When bank-affiliated players start entering to share the pie, do you see this as a sign of maturity or another compromise of the decentralization narrative.An emoji ignited a 60% seven-day surge for PENGU
On August 23, Pudgy Penguins' CEO Luca Netz posted a tweet on X with just a mysterious emoji and no text. That single emoji set the entire market on fire.
After the tweet, PENGU climbed steadily, rising about 60% over the past seven days, once breaking above $0.01, hitting a recent high. Everyone was guessing what that emoji meant, with the mainstream interpretation quite consistent: the company’s IPO might really be progressing. Luca Netz had previously said he hoped to take Pudgy Penguins public by 2027. A project that started with NFT penguin avatars is now talking about ringing the bell—quite a contrast.
Looking further, it increasingly doesn’t look like a typical crypto project. A few days ago, Pudgy Penguins announced entry into the South Korean retail market, selling plush toys, trading cards, comics, and larger-sized dolls. Before that, it had already expanded into major U.S. retailers like Target and Walmart. You read that right—physical toys on store shelves, not just a string of code on the blockchain.
Looking back at the entire NFT space is even more interesting. Most avatar projects from 2021 have seen their floor prices plummet close to zero, communities dissolved, and teams vanished. Pudgy is one of the very few that survived and is becoming more tangible. While others worry about the next hot trend, it has already brought its business to supermarket shelves and turned its IP into a tangible consumer brand.
Actually, crypto projects talking about going public isn’t new; many founders have painted that picture before, but most never followed through. What’s special about Pudgy is that it first reached out to real shelves, using toy sales revenue to back its narrative. But once the story moves to the stock market, the evaluation criteria shift from community sentiment to revenue and profit—that’s the real test.
What’s interesting is Luca Netz’s approach. He doesn’t issue announcements or write long posts; he just drops an emoji and lets the market imagine the IPO progress. This kind of teasing both whets appetites and avoids any falsifiable promises. For those holding PENGU, every emoji is a reason to hold on.
A community built on memes is now placing toys in stores while signaling an IPO. In the crypto world, no native consumer brand has truly made it to the public stock market yet. How far PENGU’s current surge can go will only be answered when the bell actually rings. But honestly, we all have to ask: can a meme project really become a Wall Street–worthy public company, or is it just another hype-driven party fueled by narrative?#宇树上市后连续回落，估值如何定价？
On August 19, the first day of listing, the opening price was ¥1100, up 629%, with a market value of ¥444.9 billion. The closing price that day was ¥845, with a market value of ¥341.8 billion. It then fell for four consecutive days, hitting an intraday low of ¥588 on August 25, a drop of over 46% from the opening price, with market value falling below ¥250 billion.
How far are the numbers from reality?
585x dynamic PE, 1228x static PE. Revenue in the first half of the year was ¥1.152 billion, net profit ¥274 million. Net profit excluding non-recurring items declined 19.34% year-on-year. Q1 revenue grew 68%, but net profit excluding non-recurring items fell 52%. The actual operational efficiency of robots in factories is still lower than humans, and the timing for large-scale promotion is far from mature. As of Q3 2025, 73.6% of humanoid robot revenue comes from research institutions. The industrial scenario accounts for a very low proportion.
What do institutions think?
Nomura initiated coverage on the listing day with a buy rating and a target price of ¥370, based on a 2027 expected price-to-sales ratio of 25x. The target price has 145% upside from the issue price but is only about half of the current price. Brokers expect a compound annual growth rate of 122% in revenue from 2026 to 2028, with 2028 revenue forecasted at ¥13.184 billion.
The humanoid robot sector is solid, and Yushi's industry position is also solid. But the price of ¥588 corresponds to the 2028 revenue expectation of ¥13.1 billion, while the full-year revenue for 2026 is only over ¥2 billion. The market is shifting from "storytelling" to "calculating performance," and this process is not yet complete. Three Storage Coins Surge 50% While Holdings Shrink by 30%
Since July 30, three storage stock tokens on the Hyperliquid chain—SKHX, SNDK, and MU—have experienced a concentrated rebound. SKHX has risen by 29.9%, SNDK by 52.6%, and MU by 28.5%. Judging by the price increase alone, this is quite an impressive rally.
However, breaking down this rise tells a very different story. Monitoring by TradingBeats shows that the on-chain open interest (OI) value of these three dropped from about $999 million to $677 million, a decrease of $322 million or 32.2%. Even more striking is the drop in contract volume: SKHX holdings fell by 45.1%, SNDK by 47.2%, and MU by a massive 60.4%.
Prices clearly climbed steadily, yet the contracts being wagered are disappearing en masse. This indicates that the price surge is not driven by new money entering the market, but rather by existing capital actively reducing leverage at higher price levels. While the OI in USD terms may be supported by rising prices, converting to contract volume reveals unmistakable signs of withdrawal.
This deleveraging trend has not stopped over the past seven days. Comparing snapshots from August 18, the combined OI of the three dropped another 22.1%. The margin leverage of whales is shrinking in tandem: SKHX shorts’ effective leverage fell from 5.5x to 2.9x, MU shorts from 7.7x to 4.7x. Both longs and shorts are pulling back, as if collectively stepping away from the table.
Another comparison is even more interesting. During the same period, the entire crypto market has been warming up—Bitcoin retook $80,000, and altcoin season sentiment is returning. Normally, this would encourage more leverage. Yet in storage tokens, large on-chain capital is doing the opposite: the more the price rises, the more aggressively leverage is cut. This divergence is often more telling than the price gains themselves.
This retreat isn’t limited to on-chain activity. The leveraged ETFs in South Korea tracking Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix saw nearly $1 billion in net outflows this month—the first monthly net outflow since their launch at the end of May. On one side, spot prices are rebounding; on the other, leveraged products are being redeemed. Both retail players and large on-chain capital seem to be quietly pulling back.
This is very different from being squeezed out and forced to sell; it looks more like a group of large investors quietly managing their positions at the rebound’s peak. When we watch the market, it’s easy to get caught up in the attractive price gains and rush in. But on-chain data tells a different story: prices are hitting new highs, but liquidity is systematically draining.
Whether the rally can continue depends on whether fresh, real capital is willing to step in. If it’s just existing capital deleveraging, then the foundation of this rally may be much more fragile than it appears. Do you think this could be a sign of a pump-and-dump setup?Behind KNTQ's 30% Surge in One Day Lies a New Layer 2
In the afternoon, an inconspicuous piece of news pushed a coin called KNTQ up by 30% within a few hours, with its valuation briefly reaching $270 million. Many people hadn't yet realized what exactly was driving this coin's rise.
In essence, the Kinetiq team launched a high-performance Layer 2 network specifically for the Hyperliquid ecosystem, named Elysium. According to them, this chain uses HYPE directly as the gas fee, and half of the earnings made by the sequencers will be used to buy back and burn KNTQ. In other words, the busier the chain runs, the faster KNTQ is bought back and burned, which sounds like a self-sustaining value loop.
We all know that in the past two years, the hottest terms have been dedicated chains and Layer 2s; any project with some reputation wants to build their own. But directly writing token burn into revenue sharing like this has indeed piqued many people's interest. Once the news broke, some in the community called for a valuation reassessment, and some added KNTQ to their watchlists overnight, causing the market to move.
But looking at it calmly, the contrast is quite obvious. A newly announced Layer 2 with few people actually running business on it, yet the token price has already priced in all future expectations. The buyback and burn sounds great, but the premise is that sequencers actually receive money and are willing to give up half of it. Burning half the revenue is effectively a disguised dividend to holders, a design that is especially easy to spin stories around when sentiment is good. At this stage, it feels more like injecting a shot of adrenaline into the current price with a blueprint that hasn't been realized yet.
What’s more worth pondering is the Hyperliquid line. HYPE itself is already a giant, and now a dedicated Layer 2 has grown around it, indicating that the ecosystem players are scrambling to lock in traffic and assets within their own territory. For ordinary players like us, this narrative is the easiest to get hyped about and the easiest to jump in before fully understanding it.
Looking back, these new chains with attractive tokenomics were all hailed as ecosystem cornerstones at launch, but few have actually generated sustainable revenue. Whether Elysium’s confidence to burn half its revenue comes from real demand or from expectation management to pump the price first, time will tell.
The person who flipped KNTQ in one day—did they bet on the infrastructure or just catch the wave of sentiment? When this heat dies down, will Elysium deliver revenue on time, or will it just become another pie drawn on a whitepaper? How long do you think this buyback and burn model can last? New whales trapped for months wiped out $1.2 billion in three days
Over the past few months, a group of people who only started heavily accumulating Bitcoin from the end of last year to the beginning of this year have been stuck below their cost basis. The market calls them new whales, with long-term unrealized losses on their books, and many barely dared to open their accounts during that period. But in the last three days, this group suddenly collectively broke even and cashed in their profits all at once.
Moreno, an analyst from on-chain data company CryptoQuant, provided some surprising numbers. This batch of new whales realized profits exceeding $1.2 billion in the past three days, marking the largest profit-taking event on record for this group. On August 20 alone, they locked in about $614 million in profits, setting a single-day record.
Interestingly, all this happened during a price rebound. Bitcoin climbed from a low back above the short-term whale cost basis of about $68,900 to a trading price near $77,700 on August 23, roughly 12.8% higher than this group’s total cost basis. The funds trapped for a long time finally got a chance to exit fully above breakeven and even make a profit.
This group differs from the older whales who have held on for a long time. The old whales mostly have very low cost bases and thick unrealized gains, moving more slowly. The new whales entered this cycle and got trapped right away; once the rebound arrived, they prioritized taking profits, behaving more like traders than believers.
This is generally a good thing, but it hides an unavoidable problem. When a group collectively dumps their chips on the market, who will take them? Moreno calls the current trend an important demand test. If Bitcoin can firmly hold above the roughly $70,000 whale cost basis and profit-taking gradually returns to normal levels, it means new incoming funds are absorbing the selling pressure, and this rebound has real strength to continue.
Conversely, if profit-taking remains high and the price falls back below that cost basis, this rally might just be a breakeven exit rebound. Those who were trapped have exited, turning into selling pressure above, and the pressure from new incoming funds will only increase.
The market is now profitable again, that’s a fact. But whether it can digest the pressure from this wave of profit-taking is what really matters next. What do you think? Has someone caught this $1.2 billion, or is it just passing the risk down the line?Vitalik made his first move in two years by buying this
The market almost forgot that Vitalik would personally step in to buy coins. The last time he publicly invested in a new project was in November last year when he spent 32 ETH to buy an NFT from a prediction market platform. Before that, he hadn’t made a move for nearly two years. But just last month, he quietly invested 16 ETH into a protocol called The Interfold, which was worth about $28,000 at the time.
This amount is pocket change for Vitalik. But people on-chain think differently. Once the news spread that Vitalik bought it, the story spread like wildfire. On August 19, the token FOLD launched, initially riding this narrative from a $28 million market cap all the way up to $140 million. Then, when South Korea’s largest exchange Upbit listed it, the price doubled immediately, and the market cap briefly touched $230 million.
Here’s the interesting part. Vitalik himself hasn’t claimed the batch of tokens from the auction yet. He only placed an order and paid in the public auction on Uniswap, but hasn’t moved since. In contrast, the NFTs he bought last year have been held without selling. So the strongest support logic on the market right now isn’t the technology, but the fact that Vitalik hasn’t run away yet.
If you really dissect this project, it’s about something else. The Interfold is an open-source multiparty privacy computation protocol developed by Gnosis Guild. Simply put, it allows several mutually distrustful parties to compute together in an encrypted execution environment without revealing their individual data. Each computation temporarily opens an encrypted environment, which is closed immediately after the calculation, leaving no trace. The most straightforward use case is anonymous DAO voting, where no one can see who voted for what, but everyone can verify the final result. Nodes must stake FOLD to participate in computation.
The problem lies here as well. Compared to privacy coins like ZEC, which are easy to understand at a glance, this multiparty computation has a much higher barrier to entry. The market is almost entirely focused on the name Vitalik rather than the technology behind it. With a circulating market cap close to $30 million and a fully diluted valuation around $100 million, and given the already thin liquidity on the ETH chain, the risk-reward ratio isn’t that attractive.
What’s more subtle is the rhythm. After the Upbit positive news was realized, FOLD didn’t continue to rise with the broader market; instead, it retreated back to the price level before the news. This means the market has pulled it back to the price range that the narrative of Vitalik buying it can support.
One person invested $28,000, the market inflated a $200 million bubble and then deflated it. Next, will the narrative continue to ferment, or will everyone suddenly realize the story is over? Maybe all that’s left is for Vitalik to move the batch of tokens he hasn’t claimed yet. Whether this move is a genuine endorsement or just casually picking up an apple, even he probably hasn’t decided yet.The supercomputer that claimed to do AI mining ultimately mined a house
A warehouse in Las Vegas was once packaged as a data center. The owner rented an office, hired a sales team, created a website, shot promotional videos, and prepared a full set of PPTs. The core selling point was just one sentence: we have an AI supercomputer that mines coins and verifies on-chain transactions, with stable returns that can be written into a contract.
This person is named Brent Kovar, and the company is called Profit Connect. On August 25, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that after a nine-day federal jury trial, he was found guilty on eleven counts of wire fraud, two counts of mail fraud, and two counts of money laundering—fifteen charges in total. Sentencing is set for November 30, with a statutory maximum sentence of 280 years.
Going back to the end of 2017, he offered conditions of a fixed annual return of 15% to 30%, plus a 100% principal refund guarantee, also claiming the company had hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto asset reserves. Some investors later recalled that they were led to believe the money was insured by the FDIC. The combination of bank-level protection plus AI-powered mining returns sounded almost flawless at the time.
The prosecution's claim is that nothing actually happened. No coin trading, no securities transactions, and the machines in the warehouse produced none of the promised profits. Investors' money was used to keep the company running, buy gifts for employees, buy a house for himself, and the rest was used to pay off earlier investors, making it look like mining profits on the books. Over 400 people, $24 million.
The timeline is the most intriguing part of this case. The scam ran until July 2021, when the SEC filed an emergency motion to freeze assets, and his mother's name also appeared in that document. From indictment to conviction, the case dragged on for another year and a half, which coincidentally was the same year and a half during which the AI narrative gained increasing weight in the entire market.
The same rhetoric is still circulating today, just with a different shell. Mining has become staking, the supercomputer has become a large model, fixed annual returns are still fixed annual returns, and principal protection promises remain principal protection promises. What really hooks people has never been those technical details, but that one sentence that sounds most reassuring: this money is guaranteed.
We usually have high vigilance when looking at contracts, on-chain data, and liquidation charts. Ironically, it’s the things dressed in suits, holding PPTs, and located in legitimate office buildings that most easily lower people's guard.
Do you think if Kovar had really used that $24 million to buy coins back then, this story would have taken a completely different path today? The smart money that promised to wait for a pullback ended up chasing the rally and dumped 40 million
This morning, the address known as the storage smart money was still empty.
It had a whole row of orders placed below the market price, between $1030 and $1060, with a total of about 100 buy orders amounting to roughly $20.9 million, clearly waiting for a pullback to slowly accumulate. This strategy is typical: not chasing highs, but reaching out when others panic.
But by noon, SKHX started moving on its own, rising nearly 4.6% in two hours. The price didn’t turn back but kept going up.
Then this address did something completely opposite to its previous setup. It canceled all those 100 buy orders below the market and after 11 o’clock directly chased the price, buying 35,600 units with a transaction amount of about $41.646 million at an average price of $1168.2.
The contrast is interesting. It originally planned to accumulate between $1030 and $1060, but the actual transaction price was $1168.2, over $100 higher than its intended buying range. The patience to wait for a pullback didn’t hold up against a rising candlestick.
Now it holds a long position worth about $43.014 million with 3x leverage, floating profit of $1.368 million, a return rate of 9.9%, and a liquidation price at $636.7. And it hasn’t stopped; it left two more add-on orders between $1162.6 and $1170, preparing to buy another $2.074 million.
What’s more worth pondering is what it did yesterday. Yesterday it closed 26,600 long units at an average price of $1210.9, pocketing $1.952 million. In other words, it sold near $1210 and bought back near $1168 today. The price was a bit cheaper, but the position size expanded by about 34% in one go.
Selling some and then buying back with a bigger hand doesn’t look like simple T trading; it seems more like it has more confidence in its judgment than yesterday.
So here’s the question. This address’s previous timing was quite accurate, but this time it actively gave up the carefully laid low-level ambush and chose to buy on the way up. Did it see something we can’t, or can so-called smart money also be swayed by a single bullish candle?
Personally, I’m more concerned about the cancellation action. The one who placed 100 orders should have been the most patient. If it were you, would you keep guarding those low buy orders waiting for a pullback, or would you also cancel and follow the rally? Where did Circle's injection of one billion USDC into Solana go?
This afternoon, an on-chain monitoring report stunned many people. In the past 24 hours, Circle has net minted about 1 billion USDC on the Solana chain. Printing one billion dollars worth of stablecoins at once, and stacking them all on Solana, is an action that is quite intriguing.
As usual, a large stablecoin minting is always interpreted by the market as a signal of off-exchange capital entering the market. Money first converts into USDC, then waits for the right moment to swap into Bitcoin, Ethereum, or various assets on Solana. So every time Circle prints money, the community's first reaction is: is there a big buyer coming?
But this time it's a bit unusual. Previously, Circle's minting mostly happened on Ethereum, but this time it was concentrated on Solana. And on the same day, SOL just climbed back above $100, rising over 5% in 24 hours. These two lines coming together inevitably make people wonder: is this billion dollars aimed at the Solana ecosystem?
This matter is worth highlighting because Solana is now the second largest network for USDC issuance. Circle shifting its liquidity focus here actually reflects the recent recovery of the Solana ecosystem. On-chain memes are active again, DeFi locked value is slowly climbing back, and daily settlement volume has also increased. Money flows to where the action is, which makes logical sense.
What’s even more interesting is the timing. The minting happened within the past day, indicating the money is already waiting on-chain but hasn’t actually started buying yet. This kind of money arriving but staying still often makes insiders itch more than a direct price pump. Retail investors are guessing the bottom, institutions are laying liquidity, and whoever moves first gains the advantage.
Those in the know will look at one detail: every Circle minting has a corresponding on-chain mint transaction, with publicly accessible addresses. This billion didn’t appear out of thin air; it’s backed by real redemption and minting demand. In other words, someone requested the quota from Circle first, then the money was printed. Who is requesting it is currently invisible to the market, but this demand itself is more honest than any candlestick on Solana.
Of course, some interpret it differently. Minting stablecoins doesn’t necessarily mean buying crypto; it could be for cross-border settlements, market-making reserves, or simply moving existing funds from elsewhere. A billion sounds impressive, but compared to the daily on-chain transfers of hundreds of billions, it might not cause much of a stir.
What’s truly worth watching is the next 48 hours. If this billion USDC starts flowing from Circle’s address to major exchanges and DeFi protocols on Solana, that will be a real signal of capital entering the market. Otherwise, if it just quietly sits on-chain, the story might end here. Where do you think this money will eventually flow?A patch that was supposed to save lives ended up becoming the key to emptying dozens of chain treasuries
In the past few days, the Cosmos ecosystem has experienced a disaster that could have been avoided. Several chains based on the Cosmos EVM module—MANTRA, TAC, KiiChain, and Nesa—were successively breached by the same method. Hackers transferred reserve tokens from the treasuries of these chains in batches and quickly dumped them on the market. Tokens like KII, TAC, and NES plummeted by over 90% within hours, leaving many holders wiped out overnight.
What chills the spine the most is not the vulnerability itself, but how it was handled. The source of the incident was an upgrade code that Cosmos Labs posted on GitHub on August 19. The announcement was very urgent, stating that this version contained important security fixes and recommending all chains to quickly apply the patch through coordinated upgrades. It also emphasized that this release was destructive in nature.
However, Cosmos Labs’ actual operation was baffling. They publicly posted the complete fix patch online but did not send any private warnings to teams relying on this module, nor did they mandate the upgrade. It was like hanging the keys to the treasury in the town square with a note saying "help yourself." Malicious actors had ample time to study the code and plan attacks, while dozens of downstream chains remained in the dark. Some project teams later revealed that the announcement bundled the fix with a batch of issues that had already been privately addressed, making it seem like it wasn’t an emergency that would cause permanent fund loss, so no one took it seriously.
Developer justde’s criticism was painfully accurate. He said vulnerabilities will always exist; the true measure of an infrastructure is who gets notified after a vulnerability is found, who receives the patch first, and whether customers or attackers get there first. Unfortunately, this time, the downstream teams received silence instead of coordination. KiiChain also publicly accused Cosmos Labs of irresponsibility, bluntly stating that this accident could have been avoided.
The technical details of the attack further highlight the problem. To succeed in the Cosmos EVM module, attackers had to exploit three upstream vulnerabilities simultaneously, one of which was an underflow bug when writing back balances after delegation in the staking precompile, plus two other undisclosed weaknesses. As long as the attribute account was enabled, all Cosmos EVM chains were exposed to the same risk. The attack continued until the night of the 24th, forcing Nesa to urgently suspend the entire chain. Its token price crashed from $0.22 to $0.011, a 94% drop. Even more absurdly, at least two days after the issue was exposed, some teams still did not take proactive defense measures, revealing a glaring lack of technical responsibility.
Ironically, Cosmos Labs’ public response came very late. Only after public outcry did they say they had advised their chains to pause block production. But by then, the treasuries had long been emptied.
This incident exposes a truth many are reluctant to face. We always think open source, modularity, and shared infrastructure mean efficiency, but when dozens of chains share the same foundation, if the foundation cracks, everyone collapses together. Cosmos itself has had a rough few years; ATOM has dropped 95% from its peak, with a market cap now only $800 million. Projects like Neutron, Mars, and Leap Wallet have shut down or left. A core team maintaining shared modules for dozens of chains failed to proactively push patches or provide clear deployment guidance in the face of a critical vulnerability, leaving the ecosystem to fend for itself in chaos. Whether this treasury emptying is an accident or a concentrated outbreak of deep-rooted issues in the ecosystem is something everyone still staking assets on shared modules should seriously consider.Biden's mentor blasts the Treasury Secretary he personally mentored
In mid-August, the U.S. Treasury quietly increased the repurchase scale of 10- to 30-year long-term bonds from $2 billion each time to at least $4 billion, with the execution window covering September 9 to November 4. The official explanation was polished, stating it was to support liquidity in the long-end Treasury market.
But today, a very influential figure could no longer stay silent. Legendary investor Stanley Druckenmiller wrote a commentary in The Wall Street Journal, directly targeting the Treasury Department. He said this is not liquidity management at all; essentially, it weakens the bond market's function of pricing U.S. fiscal risk and could be interpreted by the market as the Treasury deliberately suppressing long-end yields.
The real story lies in the relationship between these two men. Druckenmiller is not just any commentator; he is truly Biden's mentor. In 1991, Biden was invited by him to join Soros Fund's London office, and later they both participated in the famous 1992 shorting of the British pound. Biden himself has said that it was Druckenmiller who invited him into the industry, and Stan is his true business mentor.
Now the apprentice sits in the Treasury Secretary position, while the mentor publicly criticizes him in mainstream media — this scene is already quite awkward. Druckenmiller's concern is straightforward: rising long-end yields are the bond market's red flag on Washington's fiscal condition. U.S. inflation remains above target, the federal deficit is about 6% of GDP, and government debt has surpassed $40 trillion. Pressing yields down at this time is equivalent to relieving policymakers of the pressure to control the deficit.
What he really fears is another layer. If the Treasury buys long-term bonds but finances through issuing short-term debt, the market will see it as a Treasury version of mini quantitative easing. On the surface, it's a liquidity tool, but in reality, it facilitates continued easing expectations for risk asset trading. AI and high-valuation tech stocks, which are most sensitive to long-end rates, might become even more reckless.
This is not unrelated to what we hold. One of the fundamental constraints on pricing risk assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum is the long-end U.S. Treasury yield. How the Treasury handles long-end rates will directly transmit to U.S. stocks, gold, the dollar, and then to the crypto market. A mentor's public warning to his apprentice reflects the entire market's anxiety about fiscal discipline.
The question now is left for the market to answer: when yields become the core constraint for pricing risk assets, will Washington listen to the bonds or continue to use tools to suppress the signals? The country that has been the harshest on crypto is quietly putting bonds on-chain
In September, Mumbai will host a fintech annual conference, during which India will issue its first tokenized bond. The issuer is the state-owned power financing company REC, with a scale of less than 5 billion rupees, roughly equivalent to 57 million USD. Both issuance and settlement will be conducted on blockchain. When Reuters released this news, India's securities market regulator and central bank were jointly promoting this pilot.
The scale of 57 million USD is so small that it wouldn't even rank in a day's meme trading volume in the crypto world. But the significance of this event is not about the money.
Participants must hold two wallets simultaneously: one is a wholesale central bank digital currency wallet, and the other is an electronic securities wallet. India's custodial institution is rushing to develop an electronic wallet called DEMT 2.0, specifically designed to record who holds how many bonds on a distributed ledger. The initial bond term is only three months, initially open to a limited number of investors, and subsequent transfers are restricted to participants holding both types of wallets. The secondary market is planned to appear only by December, and it is explicitly stated that it will not be listed on traditional electronic trading platforms.
Here's the interesting part. The same country, a few years ago, imposed a 30% capital gains tax on crypto assets and an additional 1% TDS on each transaction, which forced local exchanges' volume overseas. The central bank repeatedly publicly stated that crypto is extremely risky. Yet now, it is taking the initiative to put bonds on the ledger.
Only the technology remains; everything else is controlled. The chain is permissioned, wallets are issued by the central bank, the ledger is maintained by the custodial institution, and who can buy, transfer, and to whom is all written into the rules. This is almost nothing like the kind of on-chain activity we are used to, except that it is called a chain.
India is not the first to take this path. The European Investment Bank issued digital bonds on-chain years ago, and Hong Kong has issued digital green bonds recorded on distributed ledgers. What is special about India this time is that it directly embedded central bank digital currency into the settlement process. The money is the central bank's money, the ledger is the custodial institution's ledger, both within the system, with blockchain used in the middle.
More subtly, India has always been one of the global leaders in crypto adoption, with an enormous user base and consistently high on-chain activity. The policy suppresses this group while simultaneously adopting the technology on-chain. It suppresses the channels but learns the technology.
The RWA (Real World Assets) narrative has been told for years, saying traditional assets will eventually move on-chain. Now sovereign states are actually starting to do it, but the way it unfolds is quite different from what was initially imagined.
So I want to ask, if in the end government bonds, stocks, and bonds all go on-chain, but every wallet must be registered and every transfer must be pre-approved for eligibility, does that really count as the day we've been waiting for? Everyone said UNI was useless, yet it burned 30 million tokens in a week
Last night on X, Hayden Adams dropped a line saying that Uniswap's UNI weekly burn volume hit a record high, with an annualized rate reaching 31 million tokens, roughly equivalent to $113 million, and it's still increasing. Many might have just scrolled past and forgotten, but I stared at this number for a while and the more I looked, the more something felt off.
During the worst of the bear market in the past two years, the most common phrase in the community was that UNI was useless. Transaction fees weren't distributed to token holders, governance rights were just for show, the price kept declining, and holders either played dead or cursed. At that time, many saw the Uniswap team's efforts as a losing bet; while others chased meme coins and dog tokens, they quietly built the protocol's foundation without making a sound all year.
Now that the market is warming up, the seed planted back then is suddenly bearing fruit. The UNI burn logic is actually straightforward: it relies on the protocol's own earnings—the more active the trading, the more tokens are burned. They never stopped building during the bear market, and when the bull market arrived, these revenues directly turned into real buying pressure and deflation. Hayden himself said the team kept building through the bear market and is now seeing early results in the bull market.
What does an annualized 31 million tokens mean? At the current price, it means over $100 million worth is being pulled out of circulation annually. This is no longer just empty buyback slogans; the tokens are genuinely disappearing from the market. For a governance token once widely dismissed across the network as having no value capture ability, this contrast is striking.
Looking back further, UNI's value capture has been a hot topic in governance circles for three to four years. Many initially bought it betting that protocol fees would one day be distributed to token holders, but after several bull and bear cycles, that never happened, and disappointed holders had long sold off. Although the distribution now isn't in cash but through burning, the shrinking supply itself is quietly rewriting the supply-demand balance.
What's more subtle is that this kind of thing often happens when no one is watching. UNI isn't a meme coin trending daily, nor does any big influencer hype it; it just quietly keeps burning. By the time the market reacts, the price may have already moved significantly.
So the question is, when the protocol itself starts large-scale deflation, is UNI still that useless governance token you remember? The debate about whether it has value might just be beginning.🔥$ETH weekly gain 30% standing above 2,500, but the real test is: can spot buying support the short squeeze? 🏃♂️🧵
On August 25, ETH was priced at $2,487, up 1% in 24h, with a weekly gain over 30%, marking the strongest week since May 2025. But unlike BTC breaking 80,000, ETH has a structural issue many have overlooked 👇
🐂 Three bullets for the bulls
ETF real money inflow: weekly net inflow of $697 million, the strongest this year; $185 million single-day inflow on August 21. This is genuine "regulatory entry" buying, not leverage.
Shorts were liquidated: $1.1 billion short liquidations on August 21 alone, with the largest single liquidation at $108 million. Short positions were forcibly closed, fueling the rally.
ETH/BTC relative strength: this week ETH rose 31.1% vs BTC's 23.5%, ETH is no longer just "BTC beta," showing independent alpha.
🐻 Three reasons shorts haven't given up yet
The first phase of the rise was driven by liquidations: MEXC analysts state—once leveraged shorts are fully liquidated, forced buying disappears, and subsequent gains must be supported by organic buyers, otherwise it’s a "sharp short-covering event" rather than a sustainable trend $XAU gold fell 1.2% today. $PAXG 4,602.1, intraday low dipped to 4,598.7—just one point away from 4,600, then bounced back. I wrote about this drop in full yesterday. The intraday high was 4,688.5, exactly hitting my first sell-off zone of 4,680–4,700; the intraday low was 4,598.7, precisely touching the 4,600 risk control line. The market didn’t exceed expectations; today was a day to test discipline. First, let's break down the three layers of reasons for today's drop. Layer one: a large sell order. Today, financial media kept reporting "a large transaction"—a big order slammed down, triggering a chain of stop-losses during the Asian session. Our own data confirms this: PAXG’s trading volume today was 2.1 million USD, compared to 1.53 million USD at the same time yesterday. Volume increased on the drop; the selling pressure was real. Layer two: rebound in the US dollar and US Treasury yields. Classic textbook pressure, the drop was respectable. Layer three: crowded positions + pre-event cooling off. Last week, gold rose over 5% in a single week, hitting a three-month high, with longs fully stacked. Tomorrow (8/26) at 20:30 is the July PCE report, and on 8/28 Warsh’s debut. Large funds are reducing risk exposure ahead of major data releases, which is not surprising. Today's drop is mostly a pre-event cooldown, not a failure in the test. What I did as planned: the sell order at 4,680 was executed. No heroics here. This isn’t me predicting the drop—it’s that I set the sell position yesterday, the market reached it, and the order was filled. OnlyThe money claimed to be the safety net was quietly used to buy the dip on Bitcoin
Today, someone uncovered a set of data showing that Binance's SAFU fund, which is specifically used as a safety net, now has an unrealized profit of 221 million USD.
The timing is very interesting. Monitoring shows that this money was gradually used to buy between February 2 and 12 this year, accumulating 15,000 BTC. Based on a scale of 1 billion USD, the average cost was around 66,666 USD. Today, Bitcoin just broke above 81,000 USD, rising more than 4% in 24 hours, and the book return on this batch of chips is 21.5%.
Think about what the situation was like in those days of February. Sentiment hit rock bottom, rumors spread that MicroStrategy was going to sell coins, and social platforms were full of discussions about whether to take losses and exit. Many people at that time converted their spot holdings into stablecoins for peace of mind. Meanwhile, the fund whose name literally means safety quietly converted 1 billion USD into Bitcoin during the same period.
The original intention of SAFU is insurance. A portion of the fees is set aside so that if the platform encounters problems and user assets are damaged, it can be used for compensation. Its primary attribute should be that it is always available and does not depreciate. So in the early years, it was always held in stablecoins, and no one cared about its yield. Later, the asset structure changed, adding BTC and platform tokens, which sparked controversy: why should an insurance fund bear price volatility?
The harshest criticism at the time was actually quite piercing. When a real incident happens, it is often when the market is at its worst, and Bitcoin is also falling at the worst market moments. The day compensation is needed is exactly the day this asset suffers the most depreciation, and this awkward issue has never been clearly explained. During the February downturn this year, doubts peaked, and at that time this position was at an unrealized loss.
Now with an unrealized profit of over 200 million, the sentiment immediately changed, and comments like "great foresight" started appearing. But if you think carefully, from unrealized loss to unrealized profit, the only thing that changed is the price; that structural problem hasn’t moved a bit. When above the cost line, it’s making money; if it falls below, it’s losing money. The safety net capability still rides the roller coaster with the market.
On the same day, there were two other scenes. A whale who placed nearly 100 million USD sell orders yesterday quietly placed buy orders of 25 million USD each at 75,888, 73,555, and 72,222 within eleven seconds after midnight, patiently waiting for a 6% to 10% pullback; and a short position opened near 76,000 USD is now at an unrealized loss close to 10 million USD. These people are gambling their own money on direction and admit losses if they lose. SAFU is different; behind it stands the trust quota of all users.
So I’m quite curious how we view this matter. Should insurance funds hold volatile assets? Is making a profit considered skill? If one day it loses and there’s a problem, who should bear the consequences?Bitcoin orthodox guardian Saylor suddenly changes stance
Michael Saylor, founder of Strategy, dropped a long article today that directly struck a nerve with many veteran Bitcoin players. In the past, everyone’s impression was that he was the figure who put the entire company’s balance sheet into Bitcoin and preached that self-custody was the only true path. But in this new article, he clearly wrote that self-custody should be a right, not an obligation.
This statement sounds light but carries great weight. He explicitly criticized a rigid tendency in early Bitcoin culture that treated self-custody as the only legitimate holding method, while lumping ETFs, bonds, preferred shares, derivatives, and other Bitcoin-linked financial products into the derogatory category of "paper Bitcoin." Saylor’s current judgment is straightforward: this orthodoxy was useful in the early days but can no longer explain what Bitcoin has become today.
He repositioned Bitcoin as digital capital. This means it no longer serves as a proxy for fiat currency but has become a scarce, globally liquid, programmable capital base that does not rely on any issuer. Banks, securities, credit, insurance, and companies can all layer on top to form a tiered financial system. In his view, self-custody, multisig, institutional custody, and exchange platform products can each play their role according to users’ risk tolerance.
The most striking sentence is that he changed the slogan from "don’t trust any institution" to "perform risk assessment on different institutions." This effectively brings the early absolutist slogan back to pragmatism. What really needs to be guarded against, he says, are not all counterparties but those that are opaque, unsegregated, lack governance, and cannot control risk.
He even listed a series of principles: protocol minimalism maximizing economic efficiency, replacing founder worship with first principles, and judging security based on evidence rather than brand. Every sentence seems to challenge old Bitcoin dogma.
The community reaction split instantly. Some felt Saylor finally spoke the truth for big capital—institutions entering the market must rely on compliant custody. Other veteran players felt this was tantamount to officially labeling "paper Bitcoin," transforming Bitcoin from electronic cash into Wall Street collateral.
Coincidentally, at the moment he published the article, Bitcoin had just surpassed $81,000, and Strategy, as a proxy stock for Bitcoin, also hit a new high in popularity. When the largest holder starts incorporating institutional products into the orthodox narrative, perhaps we should ask: is the coin in your hand faith or just another layer of capital going forward? Seventy percent of cryptocurrency trading in South Korea happens on this platform about to go public
When South Koreans buy crypto, seven or eight out of ten go through Upbit. This platform, which monopolizes the South Korean crypto market, has a parent company Dunamu that recently loosened its stance—they have indeed been in contact with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), so going public in the U.S. is no longer just a rumor.
Upbit is almost synonymous with crypto trading in South Korea. It alone accounts for over 70% of South Korea's spot trading volume, peaking close to 80%. The familiar "kimchi premium" for retail investors in South Korea often originates here; the same coin priced in Korean won is usually more expensive than in U.S. dollars. A domestic platform growing this large relies not only on first-mover advantage but also on the licensing barrier for Korean won deposits and withdrawals.
Dunamu is being honest but also leaving room for maneuver. They emphasize that the decision to ring the bell in the U.S. is not yet final, and their financial statements have not been converted to U.S. GAAP. However, actions are already underway: they are advancing a share swap with Naver Financial, with valuations of 15 trillion and 5 trillion Korean won respectively, and the swap ratio is set at about 2.54 Naver Financial shares for every 1 Dunamu share. Within a year after the transaction, an IPO committee must be established.
The most interesting part is the listing location. Naver is already listed in South Korea, and if Dunamu, as a subsidiary, were to list again in South Korea, it would violate regulations against duplicate listings of parent and subsidiary companies. Therefore, the market generally believes Nasdaq is the destination, most likely via ADR (American Depositary Receipt). The Korean entity, Upbit’s business, and Korean won payment services will most likely remain intact domestically.
This was unthinkable two years ago. The South Korean crypto market has always hovered in a gray area, with regulations fluctuating between loose and tight, and platforms constantly under threat. Now the biggest player is proactively embracing the strictest U.S. regulations, aiming for compliance status, institutional funds, and a seat at the capital table. In the bigger picture, Coinbase has long been public, Bullish is pushing forward, and even Strategy, a financial exchange, has broken into the top ten in U.S. stock trading volume. Exchanges going public is becoming a new wave.
For South Korean retail investors, the main concern is one question: after going public, will Upbit become more compliant, or will it hold onto users more tightly to make its financial reports look better? Once the platform becomes a public company, every quarter’s profits, trading volume, and user numbers must be disclosed to shareholders. So, the money from the kimchi premium—does it end up benefiting retail investors, or does it first fill shareholders’ pockets?
But the contrast lies here. An exchange built on Korean won payments and local retail investors is about to don Wall Street’s attire. Can it truly wash away its past, or is it just changing to a more respectable label? When exchanges themselves are lining up to ring the bell, are the coins in our hands more secure, or are they just tied to a faster-moving vehicle? The louder the bell rings, the more ordinary people should clearly see which end of the vehicle they are standing on.A whale pocketed $850,000 in four hours and then placed a $10 million buy order
Last night, an address quietly opened $71.8 million worth of BTC and ETH long positions. Today, after calculating, the position only lasted four hours before closing out, netting a profit of $852,000. Before the money even got cold, this person placed a limit buy order for 1,000 BTC between $72,611 and $74,222, worth about $73.53 million, just waiting for the price to drop to that range to buy in. On-chain analysts uncovered this transaction, noting that this person just opened the position last night and closed it early this morning.
The whole operation feels particularly complex. On one hand, it’s a quick in-and-out, locking in profits within four hours, clearly not wanting to hold on. On the other hand, they preemptively placed a multi-million dollar buy order, ready to catch the dip. You might say they’re bearish, but they placed a buy order. You might say they’re firmly bullish, but they only held for four hours before exiting.
This kind of tactic isn’t uncommon on-chain, but it’s quite representative at this current stage. Bitcoin has been hovering around $79,000 these past two days, with institutional buy orders moving coins in above and profit-taking orders unloading below. Players at Wang Chun’s level have already sold over 33,000 ETH in this rebound, pocketing more than $50 million. Even the largest on-chain bulls took profits early this morning, selling 60,000 ETH and 1,200 BTC, pocketing over $45 million. Funds are cashing out at highs while not wanting to fully exit; this dilemma is almost written into every large order.
No one says they want to leave, but everyone is quietly pocketing profits.
Interestingly, the whale placing the buy order is using the same logic. They didn’t add more at the highs but placed buy orders below their psychological price point, essentially taking some profit first and then waiting for a more comfortable entry point. Compared to those who go all-in and hold tight, this approach is clearly more composed and better reflects the market’s true sentiment now: it’s not that they’re bearish, but they don’t want to bet on direction at this level. Frankly, who doesn’t have a pile of unrealized gains right now, and who dares to confidently say where the price will go next?
Looking back, since the rise from $77,000, there have been too many positions with unrealized gains. Once profit-taking orders cluster, the buy wall below becomes critical. A limit order for 1,000 BTC like this is itself a signal, showing real funds are waiting for a pullback. Placing buy orders below $73,000 draws a line for the market: if it doesn’t drop there, they’ll keep waiting.
The question is, is this signal a bottom-fishing outpost or a smoke screen after a bull trap to exit first? On-chain data can tell you the order was placed, but it can’t tell you if it will be withdrawn tomorrow. That address that made $850,000 in four hours then placed a $10 million buy order—whether it wants another wave or just wants to hold a seat at the table, maybe even the person themselves hasn’t decided yet.Solana wants to lock supply but the community is too lazy to vote
The Solana community has recently been pushing two proposals that sound very significant. The two governance proposals, SGP-0002 and SGP-0003, have one core goal: to tighten the supply of SOL. One aims to double the speed at which annual inflation decreases; originally, it was planned to reduce the minimum inflation rate to 1.5% by 2032, but now they want to bring that forward to 2029. The other is even more aggressive, proposing to charge fees based on the network resources consumed by transactions and then burn those fees.
Doing the math shows how impactful these two proposals are. Just accelerating the inflation decline alone would reduce the issuance by about 18.9 million SOL over the next six years, which at current prices is worth roughly $1.89 billion. As for the resource-based fee and burn mechanism, if implemented, the number of SOL burned daily would jump from about 650 currently to between 7,500 and 9,000, meaning the daily burn value would increase from $65,000 to seven or eight hundred thousand dollars.
This should be a dream come true for token holders. Less supply means less selling pressure, making the tokens in hand theoretically more scarce. But the strange thing is this: despite such a huge benefit on the table, very few people actually voted. The turnout for SGP-0002 was only 16.71%, and SGP-0003 was even worse at 13.53%. For these proposals to pass, participation needs to exceed one-third, and they are still far from that.
This round of voting coincided with SOL just climbing back above $100. When the market is heating up, everyone sees the floating profits in their accounts, and few are willing to spend ten minutes reading proposals for the long-term supply structure. When the price cools down and the same topic is raised again, opponents will probably argue that deflation harms ecosystem incentives. The community’s attitude toward inflation seems to always follow the price.
This is quite thought-provoking. Usually, the community can argue for days over a meme coin or a tweet, but when it comes to a crucial vote that decides the long-term value of their holdings, they collectively fall silent. Is it that people think it doesn’t matter whether the proposals pass or not, or that they simply don’t realize how close these proposals are to their own positions?
A more practical issue is that the one-third threshold means the core group alone can’t pass it; they need to get the usually silent whales and retail holders involved. But voting itself is troublesome and offers no immediate reward—who wants to spend time finding their wallet, reading proposals, and clicking confirm?
When the voting window closes, if these two proposals fail due to lack of votes, will those who keep shouting that SOL is about to take off turn around and blame the community for not stepping up? Or do most people never really take governance seriously—if the price goes up, it’s their skill; if not, it’s just fate.ZEC surged to 888. Grayscale's Zcash spot ETF officially listed today on NYSE Arca under the ticker ZCSH, the world's first Zcash spot ETF. Less than a week ago it was under 500, rising over 70% in a single week, with a market cap reaching 14 billion.
This ETF was formerly the Grayscale Zcash Trust, operating for nine years with a 2.5% fee, and its revenue will be reinvested into the Zcash ecosystem. DCG's subsidiary is negotiating to inject about 200,000 ZEC into the fund—putting their own coins into their own ETF, is this to support the price floor or to find an exit for themselves?
Even more impressive is the derivatives market. ZEC perpetual contract open interest doubled from 960 million on August 19 to 1.8 billion in five days. Futures 24-hour trading volume reached 5.3 billion USD. Spot prices are rising, and derivatives are aggressively increasing positions.
This time is different from the June wave. Back then, the ETF news caused a 50% drop within two days. This time, three new factors are at play: first, the community started the NU7 upgrade vote on August 25; second, the Zcash Orchard shielded pool vulnerability was fixed in June, and the Ironwood upgrade completed in July; third, the Winklevoss brothers publicly expressed bullishness, emphasizing Zcash's scarcity.
After Monero was banned by exchanges, ZEC is the only privacy coin able to follow a compliant path. But the 2.5% management fee is the highest among peers, and the SEC's stance on privacy coins remains uncertain.
After doubling in a week, the risks outweigh the opportunities. But this story is more interesting than BTC hitting 80,000—it’s a bet on whether privacy can survive within a regulatory framework.You can now bet on Anthropic's pre-IPO stock price on-chain
A news flash this morning probably went unnoticed by many. A team called Entropy announced the completion of a $14 million funding round, led by Ribbit Capital, which has invested in many fintech companies, and also secured $40 million in HYPE staking support. What will the money be used for? They directly launched an Anthropic pre-IPO market on Hyperliquid.
In other words, the AI company that created Claude and has yet to ring the bell for its IPO now has its pre-IPO valuation continuously bet on-chain by everyone 24/7. If you’re bullish, go long; if bearish, go short. Behind this is not real stock but a perpetual contract tracking expectations.
What’s interesting is who’s behind this. The core members of Entropy come from Citadel Securities, Optiver, Polymarket, and Millennium — all veterans from traditional finance and prediction markets. Their goal is to bring stocks, commodities, indices, and even pre-IPO equity all into one trading venue. Their first product happens to be Anthropic, one of the hottest and most sensitive targets.
Why Anthropic? This company’s valuation has already been hyped sky-high; ordinary shares are inaccessible to regular investors, and primary shares are locked by institutions and insiders. This on-chain gateway lets you bet on its valuation without waiting for the IPO or needing an allocation — just connect a wallet. For many, this is far more exciting than waiting for an IPO subscription.
There’s another intriguing detail. The $40 million Entropy raised isn’t cash but HYPE staking support, effectively tying themselves to the Hyperliquid ecosystem. Creating derivatives for unlisted companies on-chain requires liquidity providers and traders; code alone isn’t enough — incentives must bind all parties.
This trend isn’t just Entropy’s doing. Coinbase recently brought tokenized stocks of Apple and Nvidia onto Base, and Robinhood is building its own chain. Tokenization of physical stocks and perpetuals for pre-IPO equity follow the same path: gradually moving assets locked in exchanges onto the blockchain.
I’m still curious: for a company that hasn’t released financials or rung the bell, who actually sets its on-chain price? Are true experts pricing it, or is it purely sentiment and herd behavior driving it? When more people bet than hold shares, does that number still count? What do you think — will this market ultimately be about price discovery, or just another relay game?